3-fer review: Monsters University, Iron Man 3, and the last Breaking Dawn movie

[Vort]

**MINOR SPOILERS**

Just back from Monsters University. (Vort: "What does Sully use to make pennies?" Vortling #5, age 7: "Monster zinc!" *sniff* [#so_proud, #punster_in_training]) I have heard mostly how mediocre this movie is, how it's such a step down for the formerly incomparable Pixar, etc. ad nauseam. So let me set this straight: This movie is in no way an embarrassment to Pixar or any kind of sign of let-down.

Is this to the standard of Monsters Inc, not to mention Toy Story? Of course not. This is a sequel -- truth be told, a prequel -- so of course it cannot hope to match the freshness of the original. And the fact that the "scaring" idea for energy generation is done away in the original movie means the whole underlying premise is sort of dead from the beginning. And, let's face it, there isn't really anything very funny about scaring little children. Yet somehow, the writers managed to steer away from mean-heartedness or cynicism and deliver an entertaining and even funny movie. It may not be a Pixar classic, but this is a movie worth taking the kids to see. A solid three Wizowskis out of five.

A few weeks back, Sister Vort and I settled in to watch Iron Man 3. Iron Man is something of a surprise to me: A movie (and series) I was predisposed to hate, but instead found engaging, entertaining, funny, and even exciting at times. The real Iron Man 3, called The Avengers, was covered with Joss Whedon's fingerprints and, for that reason, was more than merely passable or even engaging, but actually entertaining. Iron Man 3 cannot achieve that level, but it adds a few twists that make it fun to watch (e.g. Tony Starks' PTSD that seems to threaten a descent into madness). The ending was disappointing, stumbling to an utterly predictable, comic-book-ish finish, but that was not enough to ruin the film. Two-and-a-half stars out of four.

I also said I'd review the last Breaking Dawn movie, which I never did. I heard some people actually giving it some props, much different from the howls of derision heaped upon the first movies. (And admittedly, the first may have deserved some of those howls.) On the whole, I found the movie series fun to watch, a bit slow at times and excruciating in a couple of parts, but overall okay. The last movie was very action-oriented with lots of CGI eye candy. But it also brought a believable, intelligent conclusion to the series. I think people who whine about this movie are simply looking for attention. Five sparkly vampires out of six-and-a-half.

By the way, did I mention how awful the new Star Trek movie was? I think I did, but let me just reiterate: Embarrassingly bad. Not unwatchably bad, but a bitter disappointment to anyone who truly cares about the Star Trek movie series reboot. (Though, as is true with all Trekkies, such people might do better to quit caring so much about an inconsequential movie series and invest more mental effort into, for example, thorium reactor news.)

Edited July 21, 2013 by Vort

[pam]

No wonder you haven't been around. You've been too busy watching movies. :)

[Lakumi]

the meetinghouse gave me a movie, called the restoration, wish it was longer... I don't watch any current movies, CGI enrages me, none of the movies I watch would interest the lot of you... sadly

I did like Monsters Inc when it came out, someone did tell me the sad undertones Monsters University has

[TalkativeIntrovert]

I have not watched movies for years. A combination of the cost and my visual disability.

However we have just found "Unimovies" The university plays 1 or 2 movies a week in the main hall. At a cost of $4 prepaid for a regular movie and $6 prepaid for 3D I don't mind that a lot of the time I sit there with my eyes shut and just listen! The kids love it :)

As a person who has never watched Star Trek, and with no preconceived ideas, I quite enjoyed it.

Next week is Monsters University - looking forward to it.

[tubaloth]

I think Iron Man 3 sines a lot better after watching Superman or I guess Man of Steal. Overall Superman was a fine movie, but 3/4 the way through the movie I realize I hadn't laughed maybe once. Iron Man 3 is a lot more witty (which is Tony Stark). I think to have a good movie you need that. With that said I don't think I have laughed much in any of Christopher Nolan's movies.

But maybe with a new guy doing both

Batman/Superman teamup movie coming in 2015

It might have some laughs.

[Backroads]

I thought Monsters University was darling, but really had no purpose other than to entertain. Disney Pixar was trying to get money.

[Dravin]

I thought Monsters University was darling, but really had no purpose other than to entertain. Disney Pixar was trying to get money.

You say that almost as if it is a bad thing for a movie's purpose to be to entertain.

[beefche]

I thought Monsters University was darling, but really had no purpose other than to entertain. Disney Pixar was trying to get money.

It's a MOVIE coming from a BUSINESS. I would venture to say that 99% of movies are for entertainment and 100% of the production companies involved with the movies are in it for the money.

[Backroads]

Yes, but there's a difference between a movie business making money with something original and high quality and a movie business making money by churning out something for the heck of it. I don't think Monsters University had enough of the original soul left, cute as it was.

[pam]

It's a MOVIE coming from a BUSINESS. I would venture to say that 99% of movies are for entertainment and 100% of the production companies involved with the movies are in it for the money.

Agree. They at least want to make back the money that was spent on it. If nothing else. But they would like to make a profit as well.

[Backroads]

Agree. They at least want to make back the money that was spent on it. If nothing else. But they would like to make a profit as well.

And they can usually profit from franchises. But it seems the public still prefers the best effort.

[Dravin]

And they can usually profit from franchises. But it seems the public still prefers the best effort.

What the public prefers is told in the box office receipts, and Monsters University has done just fine.

[Guest]

And.... as evidenced by the Twilight franchise, you don't have to have a good movie to sell tickets.

[Backroads]

What the public prefers is told in the box office receipts, and Monsters University has done just fine.

Though I haven't met anyone who says it's better than the original. Ah well. I'll back off and you can stop overanalyzing my statement.

[Dravin]

Though I haven't met anyone who says it's better than the original. Ah well. I'll back off and you can stop overanalyzing my statement.

You say over-analyzing, I say responding you to the comments you've made.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dravin

[Dravin]

And.... as evidenced by the Twilight franchise, you don't have to have a good movie to sell tickets.

Well, the public doesn't necessarily want 'good' movies depending on what metric you are using for good. The most common metric is, "Did I like it?"

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

Well, the public doesn't necessarily want 'good' movies depending on what metric you are using for good. The most common metric is, "Did I like it?"

If we're just talking of movies, there is no logical reason why anybody would like Twilight. So, that one is at least one of those that does not use "Did I like it?" for a metric.

[Backroads]

You say over-analyzing, I say responding you to the comments you've made.

Fair enough. But I feel you magnified details. Probably my fault, but I am thinking "I sure did not mean that."